Kolzene wrote: As for "changing the world", we're talking about how Technocracy operates, not about how to achieve it, which is an entirely different discussion.
Some relevant questions to the OP:
1) Does Technocracy focus, in any part of its accepted literature, on how to achieve it - or alternately what forces would have to arise to bring it into existence? I realize this is contingent on changing conditions, but it is a critical discussion to have. For example, an existing socialist state with BIG or JIG would certainly be more predisposed to Technocracy than a neo-liberal capitalist state. Does Technocracy favor incremental step changes?
2) Technocracy, even granting it is not a political movement, cannot be brought into existence without massive political changes. What does the Technocracy community see as its proper role in bringing about the necessary political atmosphere that would allow Technocracy to flourish? Is it purely an educational enterprise?
3) How does Technocracy foresee compensating difficult or dangerous jobs? Growing food, for example, still requires copious amounts of stoop labor under very unpleasant conditions. Without the threat of privation hanging over their heads, who will perform this labor at any salary?
4) Is Technocracy an anarchist movement? Will there be chartalist money, a central bank, military forces, police, taxes, etc...?
I apologize if these have been answered elsewhere, but the answers remain unclear in my mind.
Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.